BACKGROUND: FFR provides an accurate and reproducible assessment of the functional severity of coronary stenosis. Whereas stress testing remains the preferred initial modality for assessment of ischemia, there is limited data comparing it with FFR. We sought to determine the correlation between cardiac stress testing and coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement for assessing the presence, location, and burden of myocardial ischemia in patients referred for evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Over 5-year study period, of the 5420 consecutive coronary angiograms that were screened, 326 patients had FFR measurements. Of these, 96 patients with FFR measurements who had a preceding stress test (stress echocardiography [SE] or myocardial perfusion imaging [MPI]) within a year were included. RESULTS: Of the 96 patients, there were 46 (48%) men and 50 (52%) women with a mean age of 61 ± 10 years. SE was performed in 57 (59.3%) and MPI in 32 (40.7%) of patients. FFR was ≤0.79 in 54 (56%) patients. Stress testing had low sensitivity (55%) and specificity (47%) compared to FFR. The concordance between FFR and stress testing was low for both presence (k=0.03) and location (k=0.05) of the ischemic territory. The number of ischemic vascular territories was correctly estimated in only 39% of the stress tests. SE was more likely to overestimate and MPI more likely to underestimate extent of ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: In patients referred for evaluation of CAD, there was poor correlation between stress testing and FFR. A prospective study comparing these two modalities with FFR is needed.
BACKGROUND: FFR provides an accurate and reproducible assessment of the functional severity of coronary stenosis. Whereas stress testing remains the preferred initial modality for assessment of ischemia, there is limited data comparing it with FFR. We sought to determine the correlation between cardiac stress testing and coronary fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement for assessing the presence, location, and burden of myocardial ischemia in patients referred for evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Over 5-year study period, of the 5420 consecutive coronary angiograms that were screened, 326 patients had FFR measurements. Of these, 96 patients with FFR measurements who had a preceding stress test (stress echocardiography [SE] or myocardial perfusion imaging [MPI]) within a year were included. RESULTS: Of the 96 patients, there were 46 (48%) men and 50 (52%) women with a mean age of 61 ± 10 years. SE was performed in 57 (59.3%) and MPI in 32 (40.7%) of patients. FFR was ≤0.79 in 54 (56%) patients. Stress testing had low sensitivity (55%) and specificity (47%) compared to FFR. The concordance between FFR and stress testing was low for both presence (k=0.03) and location (k=0.05) of the ischemic territory. The number of ischemic vascular territories was correctly estimated in only 39% of the stress tests. SE was more likely to overestimate and MPI more likely to underestimate extent of ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: In patients referred for evaluation of CAD, there was poor correlation between stress testing and FFR. A prospective study comparing these two modalities with FFR is needed.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: G J Bech; B De Bruyne; N H Pijls; E D de Muinck; J C Hoorntje; J Escaned; P R Stella; E Boersma; J Bartunek; J J Koolen; W Wijns Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-06-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Marcus Hacker; Johannes Rieber; Rupert Schmid; Christian Lafougere; Andreas Tausig; Karl Theisen; Volker Klaus; Reinhold Tiling Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: S A Chamuleau; M Meuwissen; B L van Eck-Smit; K T Koch; A de Jong; R J de Winter; C E Schotborgh; M Bax; H J Verberne; J G Tijssen; J J Piek Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Maria A C Christou; George C M Siontis; Demosthenes G Katritsis; John P A Ioannidis Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-12-20 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Sachin M Navare; Jeff F Mather; Leslee J Shaw; Michael S Fowler; Gary V Heller Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2004 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Bernard De Bruyne; Nico H J Pijls; Bindu Kalesan; Emanuele Barbato; Pim A L Tonino; Zsolt Piroth; Nikola Jagic; Sven Möbius-Winkler; Sven Mobius-Winckler; Gilles Rioufol; Nils Witt; Petr Kala; Philip MacCarthy; Thomas Engström; Keith G Oldroyd; Kreton Mavromatis; Ganesh Manoharan; Peter Verlee; Ole Frobert; Nick Curzen; Jane B Johnson; Peter Jüni; William F Fearon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: N H Pijls; B De Bruyne; K Peels; P H Van Der Voort; H J Bonnier; J J Bartunek J Koolen; J J Koolen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-06-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Tara Shah; Joshua D Geleris; Ming Zhong; Rajesh V Swaminathan; Luke K Kim; Dmitriy N Feldman Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.895